4.6 Article

Surgical and transcatheter left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euad101

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Left atrial appendage closure; Stroke; Bleeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and atrial fibrillation (AF) can reduce the risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and all-cause mortality.
Background Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased stroke risk in comparison to those with non-valvular AF not affected by HCM. Objectives To investigate the role of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with HCM and AF. Methods and results We identified patients with HCM and AF using the National Readmission Dataset. Patients were stratified based on LAAC status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, TIA, and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding and pericardial complications. Patients were matched using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox-proportional hazard regression was applied to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on matched cohorts. We identified 71 980 patients with HCM and AF. 1351 (1.9%) patients underwent LAAC. Two hundred and eighty-seven (21.2%) underwent transcatheter LAAC. LAAC was associated with a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome (2.5% vs. 5.4%, HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17-0.88; P = 0.024), the primary safety outcome (2.9% vs. 6.8%, HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23-0.66, P = 0.001), and reduced major bleeding. The LAAC group trended towards a lower risk of ischaemic stroke and all-cause mortality. Conclusion Surgical and transcatheter LAAC was associated with a lower risk of haemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据